About your Search

20121215
20121215
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
-minute rebuttal. >> >> thank you. president fong and commissioners, i will be very brief. objective third party planning department has looked into this and they don't see anyway extraordinary privacy issues. they spent their time looking at the drawings and they did not see those privacy issues that the dr requester is mentioning. with regarding to the solar panels, they weren't there -- they added them after we proposed the project. and didn't take into consideration the project regardless at our own expense, at the request of the dr requester, we did a solar study. the reason why you are not hearing mention of the solar study because it clearly shows that it doesn't shade their panels, regardless of the fact that they used them as leverage against us to say we don't want this. and finally with regards to the stairs looking in, it would be remarkable to be able to look into a slanted bay window with the stairs. these are issues being brought up now. there was six months of silence from the dr requester where we continually asked them to talk to us and they didn't. thank you. >>
time. >> president fong: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i hope that this house will be built soon. i work in san francisco. and i pass by this property all the time because my church is in sunset, and also i have -- because i'm an insurance agent, so i drive around the neighborhood to take pictures of the houses. it seems this house has been vacant for so long it's an eyesore. when i pass by this house it caught my attention because it does not look good. and from the insurance agent's point of view that all the vacant houses, it has the intention to draw the squatters and interviewedders. and they -- intruders and they may go into vacant homes to do illegal activities. we hope this nice home, when i look at the pictures, it seems that it is conformed to the neighborhood and i hope that this project will be built soon so that it will not throw the bad people into the neighborhood. i feel that this nice project can improve and upgrade the whole neighborhood. thank you. >> president fong: thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commis
by sandy renwau, and yee fong. >> good afternoon, ms. woods. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. i've been living in north beach since 1962. i've continuously used the central subway, but we lost that one. i am just stupefied by some of the lies. i can't believe option 2 was not the favored choice. director rifkin, you were there, i'm sure you remember this rather clearly. we were not notified about this meeting and that these options were going to be presented to you until november 30th. i understand not everybody was notified by mr. funge if these options were going to be put before you. but anyway, i was. and then i've been back and forth with him three or four times about why option 2 didn't appear on the agenda. and the last thing i heard from him was, he thanked me this was the first. thank you for your comments regarding option 2. we'll be presenting all options to our board of -- on december the first. i don't see option 2 anyplace in your agenda. the decision on which option to move forward is now with our board. i was at the meeting all three hours of it and option 2 was clearly
of the project design. >> good afternoon president fong and members of commission. i am going to keep my comments very brief here. the subject property was considered in june of 2010 and june of this year for proposal to demolish the church. this commission cited concerns no. 1 about the demolition of the existing church which is considered an historic resource under ceqa, but also to do with what i would collective call the compatibility. the project sponsor has been working collaboratively with planning department staff and with representatives of the community in an attempt to address staff concerns, community members concerns and issues raised by this commission at previous hearings. so i will turn it over to the project sponsor to address the specific ways in which the project has evolved and is continuing to evolve. thank you very much. i am available for questions. good afternoon commissioners and president, my name is ian birchel and represent the project sponsor and i would like to present the late design that we have developed with significant input from members of community a
cards. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good evening president fong and commissioners, my name is christine -- i am an attorney in san francisco and i am spoking on behalf of mr. and mrs. flavia, who are at 1870 pacific avenue unit 505, which is the property directly being affected by the project and also speaking on behalf of mr. bernard, who is at 1830 jackson street, who is not here tonight, and has not had an opportunity to send a letter and both partis are objecting to this project. i have some procedural objections to this. my office received the conditional use application this past monday, even though we had asked for it and therefore we had not had enough time to make a presentation in detail about what are the different reasons we object to it? i have been asked specifically to also voice his objections in that he apparently did not receive this notice of this application until just recently and was not able to attend tonight. now i am also informed that the sponsor and/or his architect never had a pre-approval meeting with the pacific heights association to get t
of commissioners. >> yes. president fong, members of the commission. my name is bruce prescott and i represent the discretionary review requester, lawrence rambling. this case was initially set to be on hearing on the november 15th hearing as a result of a procedural error, apparently, it had to be continued. at that time, the requester himself, there rambling had a commitment today he could not rearrange. i had requested that we had the hearing on a different date and apparently because of the 90-day policy there was no alternative for doing that. i think it's important that mr. rambling is here. he is the requester and i would ask for a continuance for that because he cannot appear. it has come to my attention this afternoon that apparently the neighbors yesterday, while trying to find if there were other neighbors who mountaining be able to attend today learned from one of them that there is apparently an underground stream that runs under this project. leading us to believe there might be some environmental impacts that have not been addressed and i think a continuance would be appropriate
hearing remains open. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners, i am rick crawford of the department staff. this case is to clarify the continuation of a wine store, tasting room and bar at 1327 polk street within the polk street ncd. the business remains a combination of retail wine sales, wine tasting with a bar aabc licensing. these changes are recommended as conditions of approval. in october of the planning commission continued the hearing due to misunderstandings regarding the nature and legality of the use and because of noise complaints. since that hearing staff has met about sponsor and representatives of the lower polk neighborhoods, communicating with the police department and the entertainment commission and on the close reading of the conditional use authorization, motion indicateds that the present operation of the business has a combination of retail wine sales, wine tallesting and bar is consistent with the 2005 authorization. lack of clarity regarding what had been approve can be seen in the fact that six months after the 2005 approval, the zoning a
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)